The DSLR Thread

[extreme_torque]

Originally Posted by NomadVagabond

Being primarily an Avian photographer myself. I've personally NEVER seen any bird photographer shooting birds with a 70-200mm f2.8/4/5.6 or whatsoever!! BUT I've seen plenty of photographers shooting with P&S and 18-200mm & 70-300mm's which are WAY inferior to the glass quality of any of the 70-200mm's available on the market on date. Why is that so?? A very simple reason. The 70-200 is NOT meant for bird photography rather it's a very good portrait/fashion/street photography lens. Hence, different lenses have different purposes and uses. You can't just put them at par with any other category as such.

You have missed the point completely. What I meant was same shot taken at 200mm by two of those lenses will have a huge difference, if you have an eye for detail. The discussion is if better gear makes a better photographer not the lenses and their purpose.

P.S. I have seen plenty of people doing bird photography with the 70-200 F4 L and the glass takes supreme quality shots. Its one of the sharpest lens from Canon till date and the cheapest L lens at that. Why do you go and have a look at some of the bird shots people have posted on the non auto image thread using the same 70-200 lens?
Good equipment alone wont make a good photographer but will make a good one even better. For clarity sake lemme mention again that good gear alone wont ever make a good photographer.

Originally Posted by NomadVagabond

Even though I'm not a Nikon fanboy. Ken Rockwell is one of the foremost professional photographers whom Nikon asks to test their latest and best camera's and lenses. And lets see what he recommends everyone?? Recommended Cameras Ouch it's the good old Nikon D40!!! Couldn't he afford a D3X??? Ofcourse he can!! Can't most of us afford a Nikon D70-80?? Yes most of us can and already do. Then why does he suggest such an outdated camera?

D40 is a DSLR for all its sake and in the end what matters is the glass at front. Offcourse D40 wont be good for action or sports photography but in its own right is a very good camera.
What he recommends to everyone is based on what everyone can afford and not what he uses himself to shoot.

[maven]

Originally Posted by given2fly

...
Disclaimer : I'm a Canon user, so I am bringing in my experience of Canon's kit lens, 18-200 (friend's) & 70-200 lenses. It simply doesn't compare with 70-200 at all, in any of the ranges.

Agree entirely. an EF 70-200 f/4 L IS USM to be precise for canon users. should suit most of the telephoto needs.


@Nomad:
whereas the picture of the bumble bee is good. a better one could have been taken with a Macro lense (100mm or 180mm). that would have ensured that the flower on the bottom right is out of focus.

[redrage]

Originally Posted by maven

@Nomad:
whereas the picture of the bumble bee is good. a better one could have been taken with a Macro lense (100mm or 180mm). that would have ensured that the flower on the bottom right is out of focus.

Exactly ! Bang on the point maven, the Macro would have been able to get more detail out of that particular shot! Here the lens comes into play and inturn investment in a macro lens need not make a person a "better photographer" but would help in bringing out more details from the subject even if the composition is bad or not.

[Torqueguru]

Originally Posted by redrage

Exactly ! Bang on the point maven, the Macro would have been able to get more detail out of that particular shot! Here the lens comes into play and inturn investment in a macro lens need not make a person a "better photographer" but would help in bringing out more details from the subject even if the composition is bad or not.

Point noted
Regards,
TG.

[StarScream]

Originally Posted by NomadVagabond

Even though I'm not a Nikon fanboy. Ken Rockwell is one of the foremost professional photographers whom Nikon asks to test their latest and best camera's and lenses. And lets see what he recommends everyone?? Recommended Cameras Ouch it's the good old Nikon D40!!! Couldn't he afford a D3X??? Ofcourse he can!! Can't most of us afford a Nikon D70-80?? Yes most of us can and already do. Then why does he suggest such an outdated camera?

Actually Anirban, Ken is an enthusiast like us who makes a living testing and giving advice. I believe he used to be a TV engineer and therefore knows a lot about the technical aspects of photography.
I believe he buys his own stuff and no company bankrolls him.

Originally Posted by given2fly

I know I shouldn't be joining this war of mettle, but StarScream, after all those wonderful gyan, I didn't expect this statement from you. If it is the pro class Nikon 80-200 2.8 lens equivalent of Canon 70-200 2.8L that you are comparing with an 18-200 normal walkaround lens, I gotta beg you to not do so. The difference being the glass quality and the elements, groups and whatever else they call give you a completely different picture every single time you click a picture. If you look carefully, you will see a lot of flare and a bit of distortion and very little to no background blur at all which is very crucial in bird photography that you have been debating with others. Otherwise, Nikon, Canon and others won't be able to sell the higher price lenses at all. They are completely different leagues and ought to be treated so. So I request you to not lead this healthy & very knowledgeable debate in wrong directions.

Disclaimer : I'm a Canon user, so I am bringing in my experience of Canon's kit lens, 18-200 (friend's) & 70-200 lenses. It simply doesn't compare with 70-200 at all, in any of the ranges.

G2F, you misunderstood me. I never said the 18-200 is equivalent to to the 80-200/2.8. I said if the same picture is taken by the 18-200 at say 200/f11 and 80-200 at 135/f11 (rough equivalent of 200mm on APS-C) - I can't tell the difference. I'm sure if I magnify the corner 300%, the 80-200 will come out on top. To the naked eye and at normal image sizes it's hard to tell the difference.

As far as blur, flare and distortion are concerned - the first is obviously much better on the 80-200/2.8 because of the fast aperture. The 18-200 can't hope to match it. Flare is very well-controlled on the 18-200. I've shot straight up at the sun and faced no major issues. See pic below. As far as distortion goes there is no doubt the 18-200 has more.

Also remember that the 18-200 is a much newer lens design then the 80-200, which is at least a decade or more old - I would assume Nikon has learnt a thing or two about lens design in that time. The Nikon 80-200 AFS and 70-200VR are newer designs than my version.

Originally Posted by absynthguzzler

We are not comparing professional lenses to "walkaround" ones purely on the output we get. I reckon what majority are saying is that the 18-200 is not a bad choice when one needs to have just 1 lens and the Nikkor (NOT Canon) performs very well at that !.

very true

Enjoying a gypsy safari ride in Kaziranga , I spot a Fish Eagle in the distance and hence get my famed 70-200 on.I bask in glory of the beautiful picture whilst missing out on the baby rhino crossing the road 5 feet away from my gypsy . I aint rich enough to have 2 cameras with different lenses nor am i speedy gonzales to change lenses that quickly. So what does the "aam" aadmi do ? he buys a Nikkor 18-200 and compromises on quality defects he cannot see, and basks in the glory of capturing 2 glorious animals purely due to the brilliance of a DSLR.

Well said

[tsk1979]

Originally Posted by StarScream

Actually Anirban, Ken is an enthusiast like us who makes a living testing and giving advice. I believe he used to be a TV engineer and therefore knows a lot about the technical aspects of photography.
I believe he buys his own stuff and no company bankrolls him.

He is more like a quack, who likes to praise Nikon, and say good things about everything Nikon.
But how is TV engineering related to technical aspects of photography? If we were talking video recording, I would understand he would know things like how 30fps is good for 60Hz LCD as compared to 24fps, but as far as still photography is concerned, I fail to see the relation.

[jaibir]

Originally Posted by tsk1979

He is more like a quack, who likes to praise Nikon, and say good things about everything Nikon.

I think thats a bit unfair. He seems to thrash Nikon as often as any other brand. Case in point: praising the 5D for having superior image quality to the D3, starting a D3X boycott because of the price, criticising their lens range etc. That said, his opinions should be treated with caution.

[StarScream]

Originally Posted by tsk1979

He is more like a quack, who likes to praise Nikon, and say good things about everything Nikon.
But how is TV engineering related to technical aspects of photography? If we were talking video recording, I would understand he would know things like how 30fps is good for 60Hz LCD as compared to 24fps, but as far as still photography is concerned, I fail to see the relation.

tsk, i ain't no expert and so I take Ken at face value. When he says his background in TV is what gave him a grounding in color spaces, calibration, temperature, digital image noise measurement, white balance etc. I have no reason to doubt him-

How to choose a Monitor Test Review © 2004 KenRockwell.com
Radial Resolution Target
Fallacies of Noise Measurements
Colorvision Spyder
Expodisc

And he doesn't always praise Nikon. He has trashed the Nikon D3X and saved me $400 on a wide angel zoom by showing that the Tokina 12-24 was almost as good as the Nikon 12-24. Now he has graduated from talking only about Nikon to brands like Canon and Leica. As Jaibir said, there are certain Canon bodies and lenses Ken thinks are much better value than Nikon offerings.

Like any Internet resource it's not wise to follow him blindly but he is useful many a time.

[Samurai]

I too wouldn't call him a quack, but he is not considered as an authority by professional photographers. He is more like a guru for amateur photographers, he advises more on how to get bang for the buck and on VFM products.

The guy who pushed me into serious photography in 2005 is a Nikonian, he is a BHPian (S Pathak) who is inactive these days. Among Team-BHP photographers, I would say he trails only Rudra. He is a purist who used film until 2007. Look at his equipment list:

Originally Posted by S Pathak

Pentax MX
Pentax MZ3
Pentax 50/1.5 MF lens
Pentax 50/1.7 AF lens
That's the Pentax Family.....

Nikon F80
Nikon F3
Nikkor 24/2.8 AFD
Nikkor 35/2 AFD
Nikkor 50/1.8 MF
Nikkor 180/2.8 AF EDIF
Nikkor 200/4 MF
Nikkor 300/4 AFD
Tamron 90/2.8 AF Macro (Nikon mount)
Extension tube - PN-11
Flash - SB-800

That's the Nikon Family...

Also qwned the following in the past...
Nikkor 20/2.8 AFD
Nikkor 28/2.8 AFD
Nikkor 20-35/2.8 AFD
Nikkor 105/2.8 AF Micro

Misc....
n number of filters (polarizers, grad filters, UV, warming, etc.)
Velbon macro slider
Kodak Carousel projector
Bogen/Manfrotto 3001 legset with 3030 pan-tilt head, Proball 308RC, 488 RCO ballhead
Scanner - KM Scandual III
Kenko 300Pro 1.4x TC
Bags - multiple shapes and sizes
Multiple standard cable releases

Phew, that hopefully completes the list.

His work can be seen here: Flickr: Saikat Pathak's Photostream

Anyway, when he was getting me into serious photography, he warned me not to believe Ken Rockwell. I was like who... and then I googled.

[absynthguzzler]

Originally Posted by Samurai

I too wouldn't call him a quack, but he is not considered as an authority by professional photographers. He is more like a guru for amateur photographers, he advises more on how to get bang for the buck and on VFM products.

Anyway, when he was getting me into serious photography, he warned me not to believe Ken Rockwell. I was like who... and then I googled.

Well , I'm perfectly fine by Ken being a guru to amateurs and also suggesting VFM products.... if thats where his credibility stands as per what you say . Not all want to be professionals nor can we afford choosing only the best that money can buy.If professional reviews always put down the VFM lenses and we get a layman saying that they are perfectly usable for an untrained eye,I got no complaints.hence Ken Rockwell is perfectly fine for me.

I'm an amateur myself. Ive got a FZ18 and this is a superzoom.Im sure there's a lot of CA, Fringing, Vignetting (and all the other jargon) when its compared to ANY DSLR camera/lens.I envy a DSLR purely for one reason and thats ISO noise control. I've got "manual" facitlity on FZ18 as well but exposure settings are compromised due to sensor size and noise control.In simple terms , I as an amateur will confess that "go anywhere" VFM DSLR LENS will do for me and shall improve my creativity/skill on exposure settings before i jump onto the "professionally accepted" lenses.

[navin]

Originally Posted by Samurai

I too wouldn't call him a quack, but he is not considered as an authority by professional photographers. Anyway, when he was getting me into serious photography, he warned me not to believe Ken Rockwell. I was like who... and then I googled.

I was warned too. I had the same reaction. but I did not google. my view on photography is
a. we all have different tastes and needs
b. we need to believe in our work and decide for ourselves what is good and bad.
c. Shoot, Learn, Shoot again. Use the Auto mode to see what the camera picks, then compare it to what settings you pick.

My photography is related to my family. It is for our private viewing which is why I dont post anything on the net (when my son was first born I documented his first year on the net but then my relateves said not to it was bad karma so I stopped and never looked back).

[madhokritesh]

Am getting the Canon EOS 50D and a 24-105 F4 L series lens in a few days.

[navin]

Originally Posted by Samurai

When I bought my first new camera in 1993, the fixed lens SLR Olympus IS-3 DLX

I had a Oly just like this one in 1995. We took it for our honeymoon and all over the world (Bali, Europe, Alaska, Baltics, etc..) and it serves us well till about 2000 when I got the Nikon F80 28-105 and 70-300ED (the one with the apature ring).

Originally Posted by Rudra Sen

For that, special lens (PC) is used.

Originally Posted by Rudra Sen

Yes it can but I was talking about vertical correction for architecture photography.

What is a Tilt-Shift lens used for then?

Originally Posted by madhokritesh

Am getting the Canon EOS 50D and a 24-105 F4 L series lens in a few days.

Killer but I would have got the 24-70/2.8 instead almost the same price aren't they? I have learnt to get the fastest lens you can afford and to avoid 3rd party lenses. It is so bad that I almost always end up borrowing the 16-35/2.8, 70-200/2.8 etc from my niece instead of using my slower lenses.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by madhokritesh

Am getting the Canon EOS 50D and a 24-105 F4 L series lens in a few days.

Congrats! But is there another lens in the kitty, 24-105 can't be your walkaround lens, the effective wide angle starts at 38.4mm.

[NomadVagabond]

Originally Posted by Samurai

Whoa! cool down boss. I didn't realise you would take this much offense. I thought it was obvious, since it isn't, let me expalin. I was cribbing about noise at high ISO, not being able to use higher F-Stop for better DOF, not being able to auto-focus and lack of IS.

Well first of all. No, I wasn't offended at all. Maybe my reply sounded a bit harsh. I'm sorry if I sounded like that. About high ISO performance. That's not the forte of P&S & entry level DSLR's at all so why complain about them at all when one has those the first place.

Originally Posted by Samurai

I gave you the example of a pair of Buffaloes racing towards me in the night and you are replying with a unmoving landscape. How does it compare?

Well that example was given after I had posted the photograph of the landscape. I didn't have the slightest clue of the buffaloes. The photograph which you had previously posted was of you standing next to the car in the low light. And well that could be taken care off by many of the standard lenses.

Originally Posted by Samurai

Actually, many Nikon fans hate Ken Rockwell. They don't take him seriously at all. Also, Nikon doesn't ask Ken Rockwell to test anything, I thought it was well known. About KenRockwell.com

Well as I had stated before too. I'm not a Nikon fanboy and frankly speaking don't have much idea about their bodies or lenses since I don't indulge into them much. But, on almost all the serious photography forums ppl generally swear by Ken Rockwell. That's the reason I took to that belief. Maybe I was wrong.

Originally Posted by kaushik_s

So equipments sometimes does matter but depending on situations. And having used both cheapo lenses and so called pro lenses, I must tell that there is a huge difference in the image quality of the photographs. But are the cheap lenses that bad? Absolutely not. They are absolute value for money for a person who has just started photography and they'll definitely have many many usable photographs. I have many such photographs and still have them on my album.
But as you keep going forward and as you are no longer satisfied with your photographs(technically) and wants to do something much better(technically) then it's time for change. And trust me, you'll know when you've to change. For some it takes times and for some it may happen earlier. As of now, for me a good glass matters most irrespective of the price.

Well I very well understood that point before too. That's the reason I've myself graduated from a 70-300 to a 100-400 and from 400D to 50D. Yes equipment does play a serious role. But, that's only when the person behind the equipment is capable of handling the equipment as well as the equipment is meant to perform. I also agree to the point that the quality of the glass matters a lot and specific lenses are made for specific purpose. That's the reason I was asking around a few days ago for 85mm f/1.8. http://www.team-bhp.com/forum/gadget...ml#post1215917 (The DSLR Thread) And that's for a simple reason and that's the 50mm 1.8 which I have got is fantastic but not long enough. While using that lens you usually tend to disturb the person and loose out on the natural expressions.

Originally Posted by extreme_torque

P.S. I have seen plenty of people doing bird photography with the 70-200 F4 L and the glass takes supreme quality shots. Its one of the sharpest lens from Canon till date and the cheapest L lens at that. Why do you go and have a look at some of the bird shots people have posted on the non auto image thread using the same 70-200 lens?

I totally agree with the sharpness of the 70-200mm F/4 or any of the series with different F-stops. But, it's NOT a birding lens whatsoever. For past 3yrs I've been a regular at Bharatpur bird sanctuary. And frankly speaking I've NEVER seen anyone sport a 70-200 of whatsoever make or F-stop over there. Infact the most common lenses we get to see there 500mm f/4 and 600mm f/4. Yes if you speak about normal wildlife mammalian photography then 70-200 is sometimes seen. But, then you see more of 100-400 or 80-400's over there. Now, let me clear this up. I'm NOT talking about regular photographers or fashion photographers going there for a shoot. But, I'm talking about serious birders. If you go and ask any serious wildlife photographer, they'll seldom be carrying a 70-200. Almost none of the ones I personally know own a single one of them. You can check serious wildlife photography sites like India Nature Watch and check the profiles of photographers over there and their equipment base and you'll find not even 5% of them might have a 70-200. So, boss it was a totally out of question when it comes to bird photography.

Recently a friend of mine Anirban Brahma who's a fashion photographer. Many of you might know his name. He accompanied me to Bharatpur, He was so happy going there totting a 300mm f/4. Till he got the horror of seeing everyone over there carrying a 500/600mm bazooka. I guess the guys who posted the shots of birds in here might have been from the similar genre of fashion or general photography and not serious wildlife photography. IMHO wildlife and action sports photography demands the top level glass and bodies. And most of these photographers hardly use a 70-200 ever.

Originally Posted by maven

@Nomad:
whereas the picture of the bumble bee is good. a better one could have been taken with a Macro lense (100mm or 180mm). that would have ensured that the flower on the bottom right is out of focus.

Firstly it's not a Bumble Bee. It's a Hover Fly. A Bumble bee is yellow and black striped and quite fat.

Secondly, Yes I agree a macro lens would've done much more justice to the shot. Sadly, I don't yet own a macro lens. Looking towards getting a 180mm f/3.5 soon when my pocket allows it.

Thirdly, No matter which lens I'd have used the flower on the bottom right would've not gone out of focus as it was on the same focal plane. When you use a lens it usually see's an object in a slice of light which is horizontal to the center of the lens. Thus anything within that slice will be visible. That's the reason the leaves and flowers in the rest of the plane are out of focus. So, a macro lens even if it was a 2.8, yes it'd have minimized a bit of the flower but couldn't have taken it out completely. Until I digitally cloned it out. Which I prefer not to do and keep the frame untouched. One more thing...macro is usually shot at lower F-stops. Usually around F-7/8 to get maximum sharpness. That'd have ruled out the question of the blurring anyway.

Water Spider on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

This was shot using a macro lens I borrowed from a friend of mine. And I had to stop it down to f/16 to get a decent DOF to get the entire spider. This little fellow was no more larger than a 50 Paisa coin. And still I've lost out a bit of it's legs.

Originally Posted by madhokritesh

Am getting the Canon EOS 50D and a 24-105 F4 L series lens in a few days.

Congrats in advance. I recently got my hands on a 50D myself. But, I should warn you the noise performance of the 50D above ISO 400 is not as good as that of the older 40D. But, otherwise it's a fantastic camera and I'm totally loving it.

Regards,

Anirban.